Opuscula Philolichenum, 9: 89-98. 2011.

How should we deal with the Antarctic and Subantarctic taxa published by Carroll William Dodge?

1 ALAN M. FRYDAY

ABSTRACT. – The problems surrounding the Antarctic and Subantarctic taxonomic and nomenclatural novelties published by Carroll William Dodge are explained. Ways of dealing with these problems are compared, and a recommendation made as to the best way to resolve them. The nomenclatural changes that will be required if the proposed course of action is followed are listed. The generic name C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker is shown to be an earlier name for (Hertel) Hertel rather than a in the Teloschistaceae, and a lectotype is designated for capsulata C. W. Dodge and G. E. Baker to replace the neotype selected by Hale. Huea grisea (Vain.) I.M. Lamb is shown to be the correct name for H. coralligera (Hue) C.W. Dodge, and the correct author citation of Hymenelia glacialis is shown to be Øvstedal not (C.W. Dodge) Øvstedal.

INTRODUCTION

In a series of fourteen publications from 1938-1973 Carroll William Dodge described over 350 new taxa of lichenized fungi (including 11 new genera) and made around 150 new combinations from the Antarctic and Subantarctic, all from other people’s collections (Dodge & Baker 1938, Dodge 1948, Dodge & Rudolph 1955, Dodge 1962, 1965a, 1965b, 1965c, 1966a, 1966b, 1968a, 1968b, 1969, 1970, 1973). The first two publications (Dodge & Baker 1938, Dodge 1948), dealing with collections made by the Second Byrd Antarctic Expedition (Dodge & Baker 1938) and the British, Australian, New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (B.A.N.Z.A.R.E.; Dodge 1948), are extensive treatise, both over 200 pages in length, with detailed descriptions, illustrations, and keys to within genera, and give the appearance of being authoritative works. The other, later publications, however, include only descriptions of new taxa and new combinations; the former rarely including any comparative details separating the new taxa from already described ones, and the latter often made without any description or explanation. This contribution summarizes Dodge’s work and its subsequent interpretation, suggests four possible courses of action and recommends one of these that would minimize the adverse affect of Dodge’s work on the nomenclature of Antarctic and Subantarctic lichenized fungi, and upon lichenology in the region in general.

CARROLL WILLIAM DODGE 1895–1988

Carroll W. Dodge was a well-respected figure in medical mycology (Dodge 1936) and hypogeous fungi (e.g., Dodge & Zeller 1934). He held positions at Harvard University (1921–31) and Washington University, St. Louis and the Missouri Botanical Garden (1931–63) and, after his retirement in 1963, as a Research Professor at the University of Vermont. He also taught courses on medical mycology in various South American countries from 1934–60. However, he also had an absorbing interest in that went back to his undergraduate days, and these became his main preoccupation after his retirement. His earliest lichenological work was on the biota of his native NE North America (Dodge 1926), but it was a series of publications on the lichens of the neotropics (Dodge 1933, 1935, 1936) that established him as the leading American lichenologist of his day. Presumably, it was this that lead to him being asked to identify the lichens from the 2nd Byrd Antarctic Expedition, which he worked on with his post doctoral student Gladys

1 ALAN M. FRYDAY – Herbarium, Dept Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824- 1312. U.S.A. – e–mail: [email protected]

89 Baker. The publication of this work (Dodge & Baker 1938) further extended his perceived area of expertise and established him as the leading authority on Antarctic lichens and, consequently, he was asked to work on the B.A.N.Z.A.R E. collections when these became available (Dodge 1948). Soon after this he commenced his studies of African lichens (Dodge 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1964) and these two regions occupied him for the remaining 20 years of his lichenological career. Detailed biographical information, and a full list of Dodge's publications, is provided by Rudolph (1990).

AN ASSESSMENT OF DODGE'S CONTRIBUTION TO ANTARCTIC LICHENOLOGY

Llano (1951) in his review of the B.A.N.Z.A.R.E. Report (Dodge 1948) called it a “milestone in American Lichenology” but 26 years later, Almborn (1974) ended his highly critical review of Dodge’s Antarctic Flora (Dodge 1973), by quoting from a letter from “another eminent lichenologist otherwise known for his moderate judgment ‘This author has caused untold damage to taxonomic lichenology. His publications unfortunately cannot be simply ignored. Future serious lichenologists will have to spend much time and trouble in evaluating and identifying all his mainly useless taxa.’” So what caused this reversal of opinion? To some extent it was a more critical appraisal of Dodge's descriptions, which revealed numerous inaccuracies and omissions (Almborn 1974, Lindsay 1974), and his scant regard for, or lack of understanding of, the rules of botanical nomenclature that caused doubt about the accuracy of his work. Lindsay (1974), for example, notes that of the seven new species that Dodge (1973) described “five of these incorrectly as nomina nova, two of these five not validly published”, and also that “a number of new combinations published by Dodge are superfluous, since they have been published previously by other authors”, whereas Almborn (1974) notes that “the author has paid too little attention to formal details” and cites “a few examples (among hundreds)”. Also a factor was that Dodge was concurrently working on the of African lichens (Dodge 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1964, 1971). The African lichen biota was far better known than that of the Antarctic and, therefore, it was easier to see that Dodge’s taxonomic concepts did not correspond to those of other workers (Almborn 1965, 1973). However the conclusive factor in the reappraisal of Dodge’s contribution to Antarctic lichenology was that Llano and his contemporaries did not have access to the collections upon which Dodge’s new taxa were based. Dodge kept all the collections upon which he worked, including the type specimens of his new species, in his private herbarium, and it was only when this, which amounted to 75,000 collections, was donated to the Farlow Herbarium (FH) at Harvard University in 1988 that they became available to other researchers. What they discovered was beyond their wildest expectations and reduced their already low assessment of Dodge’s contribution to taxonomic lichenology to almost zero. Castello and Nimis (1995), who were the first lichenologist to critically examine Dodge’s Antarctic collections after his death, describe Dodge’s type material thus: “What we discovered was beyond any expectation: some types were just fragments of unrecognizable sterile crusts, the same species was described several times under widely different generic names, the original descriptions do not comply with the characters of the types, the characters given for some species are a mixture of characters of different lichens growing together on the type collection”. One example of the results of Castello and Nimis’ (1995) investigation is reproduced here, but it is highly recommended that anyone who doubts the inaccuracies of Dodge’s work should read the complete article.

Blastenia grisea C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker The type (Siple & Corey 73-6) consists of two very small rock fragments; the label states that they should host Lecidea capsulata, Lecidea corei, and B. grisea. The fragments actually host a few, small thalli of crustose lichens, none of which has “dull orange to red black apothecia”; on the smaller fragment there is a sterile crust with black fimbriate hypothalline strands which corresponds to the description of the thallus of B. grisea. From the type it is impossible to understand what this species really is. In the herbarium there are a few other samples purported to be B. grisea, and cited in Dodge (1973); Llano 2741 and 2724a are badly developed Xanthoria elegans (Link) Th.Fr., Schofield AA-46 is a Caloplaca of the C. holocarpa-complex, and Simple et al. 73-4 is another, dark-fruited Caloplaca with a grey thallus (a single apothecium!). The name should be best abandoned.

Hertel (1988) estimated that ca. 80% of the species created by Dodge would turn out to be synonyms, and this has been borne out by subsequent investigation. Castello and Nimis (1995) investigated the type material in FH of 152 of the 186 species described by Dodge and his co-workers from the

90 Antarctic continent and accepted only 31 (ca. 20%) as valid – and of these several were described in an incorrect genus and many others were so poorly developed that species-level identification was impossible. Of the remaining 121, they reduced 94 to synonymy with previously described taxa and dismissed the remainder (27) as either belonging to lichenicolous fungi or being indeterminable. The taxa described by Dodge from the Subantarctic have not been reviewed in the same detail but that they are no better than those he described from the Antarctic is confirmed by the author’s inspection of Dodge’s type material in FH, and the observation by Galloway (2004) that four of the five new species described by Dodge from the Snares Islands (Fineran 1969) are synonyms of previously described species, and the one that was genuinely new (Solenopsora sordida (C.W. Dodge) D.J. Galloway) was described in the unrelated genus Haematomma. To some extent, the plethora of superfluous taxa described by Dodge can be attributed to his belief in a narrow species concept (Rudolph 1990), such that any minor variation was described as a different species, and in narrow endemism (Almborn 1974) meaning that the same species could not exist in physically separated localities. This partly explains how, among the 154 taxa treated by Castello and Nimis (1995), he could describe the common bi-polar species Physcia caesia (Hoffm.) Hampe ex Fürnr. as new 12 times, but not how he could assigned these twelve species to five different genera: Dermatiscum, Dirinaria, Pannoparmelia, Parmelia, and Physcia – the first two the result of combining the thallus of one species and the apothecia of another, the second two due to poor taxonomy. Two of these new taxa were growing side by side on the same piece of rock, but at least Dodge placed them in the same genus – if not the correct one. His belief in narrow endemism presumably explains why he described a species such as Phyllopyrenia macquariensis C.W. Dodge from a single specimen from Macquarie Island as distinct from the only other species in the genus, P. tessellata C.W. Dodge, which he described from Îles Kerguelen, although they are morphologically identical. The latter could also partly explain why he did not provide distinguishing characters for his new species – because, as far as Dodge was concerned, the mere fact that they occurred at different localities was in itself enough to distinguishing them. However, this cannot explain how Dodge managed to provide such inaccurate descriptions with unerring regularity. For example, he described the new species Schismatomma fuegiensis [sic] C.W. Dodge (1966b) as having ascospores “ellipsoid to subfusiform, 4-locular, 18 × 3 µm” and the photobiont as “Trentepohlia” whereas the ascospores are simple, ca. 10–12 × 5–6 µm and the photobiont is a green chlorococcoid alga. Presumably, he mistook the septate paraphyses for ascospores. The type, and only, specimen of this taxon was collected by Gerhard Follmann and, as is usual for this collector, is well-developed and clearly referable to skottsbergii (Darb.) Fryday (Fryday 2011), which is closely related to the common T. atra (Huds.) Hafellner. The rest of Dodge’s description is fairly accurate (e.g., “Apothecia sessile, 1.2–1.5 mm in diameter, margins white, entire: disc subconvex, black, nitid…” ) – although how he failed to mention the bright purple hymenium characteristic of this group is remarkable – and clearly indicates that this was the specimen he was describing under this name. Many of the worst problems with Dodge’s taxonomic work, and the difficulties involved in trying to resolve them, can be illustrated by the genus Huea C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker (1938). Huea was erected for a group of Antarctic species in the large cosmopolitan genus Caloplaca Th. Fr. that were characterized by lacking anthraquinones, and having black apothecia with a carbonaceous exciple and a bright blue epihymenium. Dodge and Baker (1938) transferred two species originally described in the genus Lecidea by Hue in 1915 to their new genus as H. cerussata (Hue) C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker and H. coralligera (Hue) C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker, but chose as the type species their newly described species, Huea flava C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker. The type specimen of H. flava (and hence of the genus) is on a flat piece of rock with numerous small labels indicating individual species that are then named on the packet. The lichen identified as the type specimen of H. flava is a white, sterile crust on the edge of the underside of the rock, and this has resulted in all previous investigators (and, initially, the present author) concluding that the specimen was unidentifiable and that the genus Huea was impossible to typify on this specimen. However, closer examination reveals that this same sterile crust extends around to the side of the rock where it is abundantly fertile and there is another label identifying it (correctly) as Lecidea capsulata C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker. As the part of the specimen designated as L. capsulata is abundantly fertile while the part designated as H. flava is sterile, the former epithet is taken up here for this species. This specimen of L. capsulata (P. Siple & S. Corey 73-10) is mentioned by Dodge and Baker (1938) in their protologue and, therefore, is part of the original collection and must be designated as the lectotype of L. capsulata in preference to the neotype (Molholm 7; US—neotype, OS—isoneotype) selected by Hale (1987; ICBN Art. 9.17). Lecidea capsulata was transferred to Carbonea (Hertel) Hertel as Carbonea

91 capsulata (C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker) Hale (Hale 1987), and later reduced to synonymy with C. vorticosa (Flörke) Hertel (Øvstedal & Lewis Smith 2001), which means that the name Huea is not correctly applied to a group of species in the Teloschistaceae but is an earlier name for Carbonea, a relatively recently erected genus (Hertel 1993) in the containing ca. 25 species. A simple proposal to reject the name Huea would protect Carbonea but the situation is complicated because the other species transferred to Huea by Dodge and Baker (1938) were believed by Søchting et al. (2004) to form a distinct clade in Caloplaca so it may be preferable to conserve Huea with a conserved type. Søchting et al. (2004) advocated this course of action and designated H. coralligera as a neotype but, because they did not do so as a formal proposal, this has no relevance. In their protologue to Huea, Dodge and Baker (1938) cited four specimens of H. flava, but chose as the type a specimen lacking apothecia. The only other specimens mentioned in the protologue still present in FH (Simple 72A-1, 73-7) are also sterile crusts. Also in FH are two permanent slides labeled as H. flava (Box 71: 79 & 80), although neither specimen from which they were prepared is in FH nor mentioned in the protologue. One of these slides (79) probably does represent a species of Huea (sensu Dodge & Baker), although the ascospores (12 x 8 µm) are too large for H. flava, whereas the ascospores of the other slide (80) are simple (8 x 4 µm) and the exciple and hypothecium are uniformly dark blue-black. The specimen from which this slide was prepared was probably a species of Carbonea and is confirmation that Dodge confused simple and polarilocular ascospores. Further evidence of Dodge’s inability to distinguish a simple spore from a polarilocular one, and that Huea is congeneric with Carbonea, is provided by Dodge’s subsequent (Dodge 1948) description of the new species Huea smaragdula C.W. Dodge, which was shown to be a synonym of Carbonea capsulata by Castello and Nimis (1995). In fact, with the obvious exception of the description of the ascospores as ‘bipolarlocular’, Dodge and Baker’s description of H. flava resembles that of a species of Carbonea in all other respects and is very similar to that of L. capsulata – although Dodge fails to mention the carbonaceous exciple of L. capsulata. In particular, the ascospore dimensions given for H. flava, which are very small for a species of Teloschistaceae and significantly smaller than those of the other species transferred to Huea, are almost identical to those given for L. capsulata.

ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION

Dodge’s names have been described as one of the greatest impediments to progress in understanding the Antarctic lichen biota (Hertel 1988, Castello & Nimis 1995). Only 39 of Dodge’s ca. 350 names are in current use and a little over 100 have been reduced to synonymy with previously described species, leaving over 225 new names that are available and are a potentially seriously destabilizing influence on southern polar lichenology (Table 1). There are four possible courses of action, which are explained in the following sections in increasing degree of intervention.

Number of proposals to Category Number reject Good species, correct genus 10 – Good species, wrong genus 18 – Synonyms 112 – Probable synonyms 9 9 Indeterminate 14 14 Unknown 203 203 TOTAL 366 226 Table 1: Status of new taxa described by C.W. Dodge and co-workers

92 1) DEAL WITH THE NAMES ON AN AD HOC BASIS WHEN THEY BECOME RELEVANT Leaving Dodge’s names as validly published, to be dealt with as and when necessary, would result in much ultimately futile nomenclatural research and have a potentially destabilizing effect on the nomenclature of the southern polar lichen biota if a newly described species is then found to correspond to a Dodge type specimen. Dodge’s epithets are often published in a completely unrelated genus and so, in order to avoid this, it would be necessary to check all of Dodge’s type material every time a new species was described to ensure that that it hadn’t previously been described by Dodge. Only about 200 type specimens are present in the Dodge herbarium at FH (A. Fryday, unpublished data) and, of these, 152 were dealt with by Castello and Nimis (1995). The whereabouts of the remaining 150 is unknown but it is probable that potential lectotypes for these species exist elsewhere in Dodge’s herbarium, as is the case for Lecidea capsulata (see above) or among his extensive slide collection (e.g., Hawksworth & Iturriaga 2006). Many of the 50 species for which a type specimen exists but were not studied by Nimis and Castello (1995) will ultimately be reduced to synonymy, but for those for which the type is missing or indeterminate, it will be necessary to either select an epitype or neotype, or to formally reject the name. The former is often impossible because of the inaccuracy of Dodge’s published descriptions and the widely differing identities of the other collections he included under a name, so most of these names will ultimately require a formal proposal to reject.

2) INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS TO REJECT ALL DODGE’S NAMES THAT ARE NOT IN CURRENT USE OR REDUCED TO SYNONYMY This would involve around 225 individual proposals to reject. Admittedly this could be done in groups (i.e., names not used since proposed, names for which the type specimen is lost, names for which the type specimen is indeterminable, etc.) but it would still add around 225 names to the nomina utique rejicienda. The nomina utique rejicienda for fungi currently lists 42 names (mostly conserved against earlier names or with a conserved type) so to add another 225 names to this list would seriously inflate it. Rejecting most of Dodge’s names while maintaining a few would could also lead to potential confusion because future workers would have to check whether a name had been formally rejected or not. A further consideration against both these first two courses of action that preserve some of Dodge’s names is that the purpose of the ICBN is to promote stability of plant and fungal names and establish priority, not to compensate for, or excuse bad taxonomic practice, and it is difficult to see how either objective is advanced by the use of names for which the diagnosis and description are inaccurate and the type specimen inadequate. If Dodge’s names are allowed to stand it would reward his poor taxonomy at the expense of later researchers where they have subsequently described the same species with an accurate description and a good type specimen – unaware of Dodge’s name hidden away in an unrelated genus In fact, because Dodge’s descriptions and type specimens are so poor, if his names are allowed to stand it would, in many cases, be necessary for authors taking up his names to provide a full description and designate a specimen as an epitype of Dodge’s name.

3) ADD ALL DODGE’S ANTARCTIC AND SUBANTARCTIC TAXA PUBLICATIONS TO THE LIST OF OPERA UTIQUE OPPRESSA The introduction of the list of opera utique oppressa in the Tokyo Code (Art. 32.8 and App. V; Vienna Code Art. 32.9 and App. VI) provided an avenue for the elimination of potentially destabilizing works from nomenclatural consideration. This option was initially introduced primarily for works that do not consistently use the binary system of species nomenclature, but Lumbsch et al (1999) successfully proposed that a recent, posthumously published work by the Polish lichenologist Josef Motyka (1900-1984; Motyka, J. 1995-1996. Porosty (Lichenes). Rodzina Lecanoraceae. 4 vol. Lublin) be added to the list of suppressed works and that the names of genera and species included in that work be treated as not validly published. If all Dodge’s Antarctic and Subantarctic taxa publications are added to the list of opera utique oppressa, this precedent would be further extended to apply to a series of journal articles. This proposal is further controversial in that among the ca. 350 names proposed by Dodge in these publications 39 are in current use, although some of these are homonyms. For example, the correct name for Huea coralligera is Huea grisea (Vain.) I.M. Lamb because the basionym of this name (Pertusaria grisea Vain. described in 1903), predates the basionym of Huea coralligera (Lecidea coralligera Hue described in 1923), whereas the name Aspicilia glacialis C.W. Dodge (described in 1968) is illegitimate because it is a later homonym of Aspicilia glacialis (Arnold) Dalla Torre and Sarnth. (described in 1902), although the name was

93 validated by Øvstedal when he transferred it to Hymenelia and so is available as Hymenelia glacialis Øvstedal (ICBN Art. 58.1). However, although Dodge’s names would no longer be validly published, they would still be effectively published and, consequently, those names that have subsequently been transferred to other genera (18) would have been validly published as new species under that name (ICBN Art. 58.1; e.g., Haematomma sordidum C.W. Dodge, which has been transferred to Solenopsora as S. sordida (C.W. Dodge) D.J. Galloway, would become Solenopsora sordida D.J. Galloway), whereas most others (13) could be preserved, with an emended author citation (e.g., C.W. Dodge ex Fryday in place of C.W. Dodge), by a full and direct reference to the original publication (ICBN Arts 32.5, 33.4), as was inadvertently done, for example, by Hale (1987) for Acarospora gwynnii C.W. Dodge and E.D. Rudolph, Buellia grisea C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker and Lecidea siplei C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker. Only in those few cases (5) where the same species has subsequently been described by another author, unaware that it had been previously described by Dodge (often in an unrelated genus), would a change of name be necessary (e.g., flava (C.W. Dodge & Baker) Castello & Nimis (basionym Protoblastenia flava C.W. Dodge) would be replaced by Candelariella hallettensis (B.J. Murray) Øvstedal). This course of action would also resolve the Huea problem detailed above because, by adding Dodge and Baker (1938) to the list of opera utique oppressa, the genus Huea and all subsequent combinations in the genus would become invalid. However, the name would still be effectively published and could be validated by a full and direct reference to the original description and a new type chosen. The current list of opera oppressa contains about 30 titles and so adding Dodge’s Antarctic and Subantarctic journal articles to it would inflate it by around 50%. However, this is nowhere near the greater than 400% increase to the nomina utique rejicienda that would occur if the previous solution is adopted. This solution also has the advantage over the previous solution that, if a new name or combination is mistakenly omitted from the list of preserved names, the name can easily be re-instated by a subsequent author, whereas, in the previous solution, if a name in current use is mistakenly included in the list of names to be rejected, it will be much more difficult to re-instate. Although these changes are regrettable and will undoubtedly cause a short-term destabilization to lichen nomenclature, this will be confined to a very limited geographic area and is a small price to pay for the removal from consideration of ca. 225 potentially disruptive names that would otherwise have a long and lasting destabilizing effect. The required nomenclatural changes are listed in Table 2 (Appendix 1).

4) PROPOSAL TO EMEND THE ICBN TO INCLUDE THE CATEGORY AUCTORES OPPRESSA, FOLLOWED BY A PROPOSAL TO ADD C.W. DODGE TO THIS LIST. The advantage of this would be that many hundreds of useless names could be got rid of at a stroke and, after it had been done, everyone would know that all the names published by an auctor oppressus could simply be ignored. The arguments against are, as in suggestion 3), that a small number of good names would also become invalidly published, and that it would be superfluous as the same result could be attained by adding all the publications of the author concerned to the list of opera utique oppressa.

CONCLUSION

It appears that Dodge’s taxonomic work in other geographic areas was no better than his Antarctic/Subantarctic work (Almborn 1965, 1973, R. Lücking & T. Ahti pers. comms), but that problem is better dealt with by others with a better knowledge of this aspect of his work. Dodge was also far from the only author guilty of poor taxonomic practice that has had a detrimental and destabilizing effect on lichenological nomenclature (e.g., Gyelnik, Motyka, Servit) but, again, this is better dealt with by others with a better knowledge of the work of those authors. These other authors are also more problematic because, in many cases, far more of their names are in current use The simplest method of resolving the problem of Dodge’s Antarctic/Subantarctic lichen names would be a proposal to emend the ICBN to include the category auctores oppressa, to which Dodge’s name could then be added (Option 4). This would also permit other workers to propose the addition of other taxonomists to this list whose work has a destabilizing effect that outweighs the short-term confusion caused by a limited number of adjustments to species names or author citations. However, I am unfamiliar with Dodge’s other work and as Dodge is also well-respected in the fields of medical mycology and hypogeous fungi, a proposal to suppress all his nomenclatural novelties would be ill-advised and unlikely to succeed. Therefore, it is my opinion that by far the best course of action is to add all Dodge’s Antarctic

94 and Subantarctic taxonomic publications to the list of opera utique oppressa (Option 3) and a formal proposal to this effect will be submitted to Taxon. I welcome comments, opinions and contributions from others in the lichenological community in the drafting of this proposal.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank The Friends of the Farlow for the award of a Harvey Pofcher Visiting Scholars Fellowship that allowed me the opportunity to study Dodge’s collections in FH. I also thank Teuvo Ahti, David Hawksworth, Robert Lücking, John McNeill, and Linda in Arcadia for useful discussion and advice in the preparation of this article. Richard Harris and Caleb Morse reviewed the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Almborn, O. 1965. Review of “Dodge, Carroll W.: Some Lichens of Tropical Africa. IV. Dermatocarpaceae to Pertusariaceae”. Botaniska Notiser, 118: 131–132. Almborn, O. 1973. Review of “Dodge, Carroll W.: Some Lichens of Tropical Africa. V. Lecanoraceae to Physciaceae”. Botaniska Notiser, 127: 270–271. Almborn, O. 1974. Review of “Dodge, Carroll W.: Lichen Flora of the Antarctic Continent and Adjacent Islands”. Botaniska Notiser, 126: 454–455. Castello, M. and P.L. Nimis. 1995. A critical revision of Antarctic lichens described by C. W. Dodge. Bibliotheca Lichenologica, 57: 71–92. Dodge, C.W. 1926. Lichens of the Gaspé peninsula, Quebec. Rhodora, 28: 157–161, 205–207, 225–232. Dodge, C.W. 1933. The foliose and fruticose lichens of Costa Rica I. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 20: 373-467. Dodge, C.W. 1935. Lichens. p. 221. In: H.K. Svenson, Plants of the Astor Expedition, 1930. American Journal of Botany, 22: 208-277. Dodge, C.W. 1936. Lichens of the G. Allan Hancock expedition of 1934, collected by Wm. R. Taylor. The Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 3: 33-46. Dodge, C.W. 1948. Antarctic Research Expedition 1929–1931 vol. VII. Lichens and lichen parasites. Rep. B.A.N.Z. antarct. Exped. Res., 7: 1–276. Dodge, C.W. 1953. Some lichens from tropical Africa. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 40(4): 271–401. Dodge, C.W. 1956. Some lichens of tropical Africa. II. Usnea. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 43: 381–396. Dodge, C.W. 1957. Some lichens of tropical Africa. II. Usnea. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 44: 1–76. Dodge, C.W. 1959. Some lichens of tropical Africa. III. . Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 46: 39–193. Dodge, C.W. 1962. Expedition antarctique belge. Lichens. Bull. Jard. Bot. de l'Etat [Bruxelles], 32(3): 301–308. Dodge, C.W. 1964. Some Lichens of Tropical Africa. IV. Dermatocarpaceae to Pertusariaceae. Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia, 12: 1–282. Dodge, C.W. 1965a. Lichenological notes on the flora of the Antarctic Continent and the subantarctic islands—V. Tierra del Fuego and the Falkland Islands. Transcripts of the American Microscopical Society, 84(4): 502–507. Dodge, C.W. 1965b. Lichenological notes on the flora of the Antarctic Continent and the subantarctic islands—VI. New taxa from the Antarctic Continent and adjacent islands. Transcripts of the American Microscopical Society, 84(4): 507-529. Dodge, C.W. 1965c. Lichens. In: P. van Oye and J. van Mieghen (eds.): Biogeography and Ecology in Antarctica. xxcii + 762 pp. 146 fig. 24 pl. Dr. W. Junk, Publishers, The Hague, 194–200. Dodge, C.W. 1965d: Liquenes de las Islas Shetland del Sur de la Tierra de O'Higgins (Peninsula Antarctica) recolectados por Gehard Follmann. Inst. Antarctico Chileno 6: 1–12. Dodge, C.W. 1966a: Lichens from Kerguelen collected by E. Aubert de la Rue. Comite Francais des Recherches Antarctiques [Paris] 15: 1–8. Dodge, C.W. 1966b. New lichens from Chile. Nova Hedwigia 12: 307–352. Dodge, C.W. 1968a. Lichenological notes on the flora of the Antarctic Continent and the subantarctic islands. VII and VIII. Nova Hedwigia 15: 285–332. Dodge, C.W. 1968b. New lichens from Chile—II. Nova Hedwigia 16: 481–494. Dodge, C.W. 1969. Lichens. In: The flora of the Snares Islands, New Zealand.; pp. 245-250. B.A. Fineran, Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zealand, Bot., 3: 237-270. Dodge, C.W. 1970. Lichenological notes on the flora of the Antarctic Continent and the subantarctic islands IX-XI. Nova Hedwigia, 19: 439–502. Dodge, C.W. 1971. Some lichens of tropical Africa. V. Lecanoraceae to Physciaceae. Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia, 38: 1–225. Dodge, C.W. 1973. Lichen Flora of the Antarctic Continent and Adjacent Islands. Phoenix Publishing Co., Canaan, New Hampshire. xii + 389 pp.

95 Dodge, C.W. and G.E. Baker. 1938. The Second Byrd Antarctic Expedition. Botany. II. Lichens and lichen parasites. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 25: 515–718. Dodge, C.W. and E.D. Rudolph. 1955. Lichenological notes on the flora of the Antarctic Continent and the subantarctic islands. I-IV. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 42(2): 131–149. Dodge, C.W. and S.M. Zeller. 1934. Hymenogaster and related genera. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden, 21: 625- 708. Fineran, B.A. 1969. The flora of the Snares Islands New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zealand, Bot., 3: 237–270. Fryday, A.M. 2011. New species and combinations in and Tephromela from the southern subpolar region. Lichenologist 43: 225-239. Galloway, D.J. 2004. Notes on some lichen names recorded from the Snares Islands, southern New Zealand. Australasian Lichenology, 55: 21–25 Hale, M.E. 1987. Epilithic lichens in the Beacon sandstone formation, Victoria Land, Antarctica. Lichenologist, 19: 269–287. Hawksworth D.L. and T. Iturriaga. 2006. Lichenicolous fungi described from Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands by Carroll W. Dodge (1895-1988). Antarctic Science, 18: 291–301. Hertel, H. 1988. Problems in monographing Antarctic crustose lichens. Polarforschung, 58: 65–76. Hertel, H. 1993. Uber einege aus Lecidea und Melanolecia (Ascomycetes lichenisati) auszuschliessende Arten. Mitteilungen der Botanischen Staatssammlung München, 19: 441–447 Lindsay, D.C. 1974. Book Review: “Carroll W. Dodge: Lichen Flora of the Antarctic Continent and adjacent islands”. Lichenologist, 6:130-133. Llano, G.A. 1951. [Review of:] Carrol W. Dodge: Lichens and Parasites. B.A.N.Z. Antarctic Research Expedition 1929-1931 Under the Command of Sir Douglas Mawson. Reports–Series B (Zoology and Botany). Vol. VII. B.A.N.Z.A.R. Expedition Committee and issued through the Barr Smith Library, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 60s (paper). 276 pp. 1948. Quart. Rev. Biol., 26: 58-59. Lumbsch, H.T., D.L. Hawksworth and B.J. Coppins. 1999. (1406) Proposal to Add Motyka's Four-Volume Work on Lecanoraceae to the “opera utique oppressa”. Taxon, 48: 183–185. Øvstedal, D.O. and R.I. Lewis Smith. 2001. Lichens of Antarctica and South Georgia: A Guide to Their Identification and Ecology. Studies in Polar Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Matzer, M. 1993. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Ascomycetengattungen Globosphaeria, Roselliniopsis und Synaptospora. Cryptogamie, Mycologie, 14: 11–19. Rudolph, E.D. 1990. Carroll William Dodge, 1895–1988. Mycologia, 82: 160–164. Sochting, U., D.O. Øvstedal and L.G. Sancho. 2004. The lichens of Hurd Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetlands, Antarctica. Bibliotheca Lichenologica, 88: 607–658.

APPENDIX 1 - NEW NAMES AND AUTHOR CITATIONS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF ALL C.W. DODGE’S ANTARCTIC AND SUBANTARCTIC PUBLICATIONS ARE ADDED TO THE LIST OF OPERA UTIQUE OPPRESSA (CHANGES IN BOLD)

Table 2. New names and author citations that would be required if all C.W. Dodge’s Antarctic and Subantarctic publications are added to the list of opera utique oppressa (changes in bold) Date of Current Name Date Dodge Name Date New Name Priority Acarospora 2001 Biatorella 1965 Acarospora 2001 austroshetlandica (C.W. austroshetlandica C.W. austroshetlandica Dodge) Øvstedal Dodge Øvstedal Acarospora gwynnii C.W. 1955 Acarospora gwynnii C.W. 1955 Acarospora gwynnii C.W. 1987 Dodge & E.D. Rudoph Dodge & E.D. Rudoph Dodge & E.D. Rudoph ex Hale Arthonia parmeliae (C.W. 2006 Diplonaevia parmeliae 1938 Arthonia parmeliae D. 2006 Dodge & G.E. Baker) D. C.W. Dodge & G.E. Hawksw. & Iturr. Hawksw. & Iturr. Baker Bacidia johnstonii C.W. 1948 Bacidia johnstonii C.W. 1948 Bacidia johnstonii C.W. – Dodge Dodge Dodge ex [validating author] Buellia granulosa (Darb.) 1948 Buellia granulosa (Darb.) 1948 Buellia granulosa (Darb.) – C.W. Dodge C.W. Dodge C.W. Dodge ex [validating author] Buellia grisea C.W. Dodge 1938 Buellia grisea C.W. Dodge 1938 Buellia grisea C.W. 1987 & G.E. Baker & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker ex Hale

96 Buellia pallida C.W. Dodge 1938 Buellia pallida C.W. 1938 Buellia foecunda Filson 1966 & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker Caloplaca hookeri (C.W. 2004 Gasparrinia hookeri C.W. 1965 Caloplaca hookeri 2004 Dodge) Søchting, Dodge Søchting, Øvstedal & Øvstedal & Sancho Sancho Caloplaca johnstonii (C.W. 1995 Blastenia johnstonii C.W. 1948 Caloplaca tenuis Øvstedal 1986 Dodge) Søchting & Olech Dodge Caloplaca schofieldii C.W. 1968 Caloplaca schofieldii C.W. 1968 Caloplaca schofieldii – Dodge Dodge C.W. Dodge ex [validating author] Candelariella flava (C.W. 1994 Protoblastenia flava C.W. 1938 Candelariella hallettensis 19831 Dodge & Baker) Castello Dodge & Baker (B.J. Murray) & Nimis Øvstedal Carbonea antarctica (C.W. 2006 Alectoria antarctica C.W. 1938 Carbonea antarctica D. 2006 Dodge & G.E. Baker) D. Dodge & G.E. Baker Hawksw. & Iturr. Hawksw. & Iturr., Cladonia cervicornis subsp. 1990 Cladonia mawsonii C.W. 1948 Cladonia cervicornis 1990 mawsonii (C.W. Dodge) Dodge subsp. mawsonii Stenroos & Ahti Stenroos & Ahti Degelia neozelandica (C.W. 1992 Steinera neozelandica 1970 Degelia neozelandica (D.J. 19842 Dodge) Jørgensen & C.W. Dodge Galloway & P. James) Galloway Jørgensen & D.J. Galloway Endococcus matzerii D. 2006 Endococcus buelliae 1993 Hawksw. & Iturr Matzer Huea C.W. Dodge & G.E. 1938 Huea C.W. Dodge & G.E. 1938 Huea C.W. Dodge & G.E. – Baker Baker Baker ex [validating author] Huea cerussata (Hue) C.W. 1938 Huea cerussata (Hue) C.W. 1938 Huea cerussata (Hue) – Dodge & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker C.W. Dodge & G.E. Baker ex [validating author] Huea coralligera (Hue) C.W. 1939 Huea coralligera (Hue) 1938 Huea grisea (Vain.) I.M. – Dodge & G.E. Baker C.W. Dodge & G.E. Lamb ex [validating Baker author] Huea diphyella (Nyl.) C.W. 1948 Huea diphyella (Nyl.) C.W. 1948 Huea diphyella (Nyl.) – Dodge Dodge C.W. Dodge & G.E. Baker ex [validating author] Huea sorediata Øvstedal 2001 Huea sorediata Øvstedal – ex [validating author] Hymenelia glacialis (C.W. 2001 Aspicilia glacialis C.W. 1968 Hymenelia glacialis 2001 Dodge) Øvstedal Dodge nom. inval.3 Øvstedal mawsonii C.W. 1948 Lecanora mawsonii C.W. 1948 Lecanora mawsonii C.W. – Dodge Dodge Dodge ex [validating author] Lecidea cancriformis C.W. 1938 Lecidea cancriformis C.W. 1938 Lecidea phillipsiana 1966 Dodge & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker Filson Lecidea medusula (C.W. 1998 Sarcogyne medusula C.W. 1973 Lecidea medusula Hertel 1998 Dodge) Hertel Dodge siplei (C.W. Dodge 1991 Lecidea siplei C.W. Dodge 1938 Lecidella siplei (Hale) 19874 & G.E. Baker) May. & G.E. Baker May. Inoue Inoue

97 Peltigera aubertii C.W. 1966 Peltigera aubertii C.W. 1966 Peltigera aubertii C.W. 2002 Dodge Dodge Dodge ex Vitik. usneae C.W. 2006 Phacopsis usneae C.W. 1948 Phacopsis usneae C.W. 2006 Dodge Dodge Dodge ex D. Hawksw. & Iturr Polycoccum follmannii 2002 Heterocarpon follmannii 1968 Polycoccum follmannii 2002 (C.W. Dodge) Alstrup C.W. Dodge Alstrup macleanii (C.W. 2010 Lecanora macleanii C. W. 1948 Rhizoplaca macleanii 2010 Dodge) Castello Dodge Castello Rinodina olivaceobrunnea 1938 Rinodina olivaceobrunnea 1938 Rinodina archaeoides H. 1947 C.W. Dodge & G.E. C.W. Dodge & G.E. Magn. Baker Baker Solenopsora sordida (C.W 2004 Haematomma sordidum 1969 Solenopsora sordida D.J. 2004 Dodge) D.J. Galloway C.W. Dodge Galloway Sphaerellothecium buelliae 2006 Orbicula buelliae C.W. 1948 Sphaerellothecium 2006 (C.W. Dodge) D. Dodge buelliae D. Hawksw. & Hawksw. & Iterr. Iterr. Tephromela priestleyi (C.W 1965 Lecanora (Squamaria) 1965 Tephromela priestleyi 19965 Dodge) Øvstedal priestleyi C. W. Dodge (Seppelt) Øvstedal Thelenella mawsonii (C.W. 1991 Microgleana mawsoni 1948 Thelenella mawsonii H. 1991 Dodge) H. Mayrhofer & C.W. Dodge Mayrhofer& P.M. P.M. McCarthy McCarthy Topeliopsis macrocarpa 2009 Thelotrema macrocarpum 1970 Topeliopsis australis 20006 (C.W. Dodge) Mangold & C.W. Dodge (Kantvilas & Vĕzda) Lumbsch [validating author] Oevstedalia antarctica (C.W. 1968 Trimmatothelopsis 1968 Oevstedalia antarctica 2004 Dodge) Ertz & Diederich antarctica C.W. Dodge Ertz & Diederich Umbilicaria cristata C.W. 1938 Umbilicaria cristata C.W. 1938 Umbilicaria cristata C.W. – Dodge & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker Dodge & G.E. Baker ex [validating author] Weddellomyces gasparriniae 2006 Phaeospora gasparriniae 1948 Weddellomyces 2006 (C.W. Dodge) D. C.W. Dodge gasparriniae D. Hawksw. & Iturr. Hawksw. & Iturr. Zwackhiomyces cladoniae 2006 Didymella cladoniae C.W. 1948 Zwackhiomyces cladoniae 1997 (C.W. Dodge) Diederich Dodge Diederich

1 Basionym: Lecidea hallettensis B.J. Murray, 1963; Synonym: Protoblastenia hallettensis (B.J. Murray) C.W. Dodge, 1973 2 Validated by Parmeliella neozelandica D.J. Galloway & P. James, 1984 3 Homonym of Aspicilia glacialis (Arnold) Dalla Torre & Sarnth., 1902 4 Validated by Lecidea siplei C.W. Dodge & G.E. Baker ex Hale, 1987 5 Validated by Rhizoplaca priestleyi Seppelt, 1996 6 Basionym: Chroodiscus australis Kantvilas & Vĕzda, 2000

98